that is nice bonus change
- Member for
- 3 years 41 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 days 1 hour ago||Color me shcoked.||
|3 days 4 hours ago||Yeah||
But it didn't feel like they were playing slow. They were at the line consistently with lots of time on the clock.
|3 days 4 hours ago||And it will likely keep looking that way||
But it WAS encouraging to see successful blocking at times. Caveats about Opponent apply obviously, but that sort of blocking was nonexistent last year. It was a breath of fresh air.
|3 days 5 hours ago||Honestly||
It was likely a TD anyway...I bet you the ball was over the line when his elbow hit the ground. Problem was an App State players ass was obstructing the best view so you couldn't tell anything. Hoke obviously wouldn't know about that, so I was fine with the challenge
|3 days 5 hours ago||Agitating to give up those TDs||
But it's garbage time against 2nd and 3rd stringers. Can't imagine they're playing at top level aggression either...just got too lazy. Annoying, but whatever.
|6 days 12 hours ago||OSU will always be tough||
But with them replacing linemen, RBs, and the unexpected injury to Miller (who was like 80% of their offense)...that game seems very winnable. Obviously we should expect them to be good anyway, and they probably will be...but all those changes are still significant.
|1 week 1 day ago||Yup||
And we got the guy who was helping Ala-fucking-bama sustain the success they were getting. A guy who got wrongly scapegoated as well for somehow failing against Oklahoma. A guy who also helped turn around Washington from a laughing stock to a respected opponent.
So yeah, there's defeinitely reason for optimism.
I think you can definitely win both ways in college. I don't think the growth of the spread has eliminated the possibility of the "Alabama way".
To go off on a tangent...it reminds me of the NHL. There are two kind of 'styles of play" that have proven successful at winning cups recently. One way, championed by Detroit, is puck-possession. That's how they won in 2008, and it's paved the way for a team like Chicago to pretty much copy the style (and, if I'm being honest, be better at it that Detroit). But then you have another style, basically the "beat em up" style, really first championed by Anaheim in my mind in 2007...and been replicated for recent success by teams like Boston. It's always fascinating when the two styles clash, because honestly it can go either way and it leads to the best series. I think of Anaheim vs. Detroit in 2007...and the even better tightly contested rematch in 2009. I think of Boston vs. Montreal...Boston has had success, but Montreal figured them out last year. The key to winning in these "clashing styles" is for a team to gain some of the opponent's identity...e.g. for an Anaheim to be "smart bullies" and know when to outskill their opponents, and for a Detroit to be more physical and know when to lower their head and go directly at the opponent instead of finesse around them. To me, college football has turned that way. When Alabama meets an Oregon, they need to employ a more offensive strategy, even though they are a defense-first team. And when Oregon meets Alabama, they need to rely more on their defense and be patient with their offense. The times when either has had success have been when they've excelled at that.
OK, wow, I wrote a lot more than I intended to, haha. Alright then, I'm done.
|1 week 1 day ago||I agree completely.||
What gives me faith in Hoke is I think he knows he needs to adapt to changes in the football landscape. He and Mattison changed the defensive scheme to address it, hopefully with good results this year. He changed OCs to get someone who, yes, is pro style, but also knows how to call an adaptable offense in this century.
But yeah, I'm done with talking about the past. It's time to add some new years to the stockpile of past success.
|1 week 1 day ago||Oh that Wisconsin game.||
It's kind of scary to think Michigan could have just as easily been 2-10 as it could have been anything better than 3-9. Doesn't 2-10 look so much worse somehow? That Wisconsin game was a sort of miracle.
Of course, I think it's also easy to envision the year ending up much differently had they pulled off that Utah game. Damnit.
|1 week 1 day ago||I don't think anyone should expect miracles with the run game||
But am I expecting something other than abysmal? YES. But maybe we're talking about upgrading to "below average".
|1 week 1 day ago||I mean, we could argue all day really||
It just comes down to personal opinion I guess. And my opinion is that at worst, 2013 compares more closely to 2010 than any other year. I think (part) of the reason why others may disagree is because bad offense and good defense is not nearly as visually appealing as good offense and bad defense. I mean, 2013 still had a bowl game. In fact, it's kind of funny how similar (and anti-similar) 2013 was to 2010. Good-to-great offense, historically inept defense, some close victories, a lot of blowouts, horrible bowl game (2010). Good-to-great defense, historically inept and inconsistent offense (because of OL problems), someclose victories (and close defeats), and a horrible bowl game blowout to end the year (2013). The reason I think 2013 is better is because except for the MSU game and the bowl game, Michigan was competetive with everyone. But the reason this makes 2010 look better is because in 2010 Michigan clearly outplayed inferior opponents, while in 2013 we have Akron and Uconn...and others. But that's why I dislike the insinuation that it felt worse than 2008, because to me 2008 and 2009 are a different level of bad.
"And like 2013, you knew that one part of the team wasn't working (the defense) is part because of the coordinator, and had RR been kept around perhaps they would have made a change and we'd have optimism. I mean, basically that same defense turned into a very solid unit in 2011"
I could say the same thing about the offense last year, and Hoke has thankfully made a change in OC, hopefully for the better. The offense could very well be very solid this year with a 5th year QB, and all it would take is the OL to merely approach "serviceable" or "mediocre" so that the running game can actually be a small threat rather than gigantic liability.
|1 week 1 day ago||If 2008 was expected, then so was 2013.||
You cannot have a hole as large as Michigan did on OL and expect great results. No, it doesn't excuse the historical ineptitude, but come on. I barely watched games in 2008, it was that bad. 2009 wasn't much better...there was that one ND win, and thats it. And folks were willing to overlook historically inept defense in RR's third year...but nobody seems to be pointing to that year on this list. It was 2013 compared to 2008 somehow, which is a bitchslap to Hoke in my mind.
I mean, do people remember 2010? Close wins, blowout losses. Embarrasingly, historically inept defense. And that year is somehow better than 2013? What, because of Denard?
|2 weeks 4 hours ago||Wait wait wait.||
If you're going to cite Michigan's 2011 win as an example (which I don't think it is), how come I can't do the same thing for OSU's wins in 2008 and 2009 (and shoot, throw in 2010 as well)?
|2 weeks 21 hours ago||Yup||
Like when we lost Denard and Henne in their senior years. Which were also the last 2 senior QBs Michigan has had in a looooooooong time.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||So you know they're a dumpster fire already?||
Intriguing. Clearly that means you're a witch, because you can see the future.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||They will never atone for that defeat||
They could beat Appy State 99 times in 99 years and not atone for that defeat.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I don't know why you're so dismissive of it||
You or I may not care, but there's a lot of people who do. And there's a lot of people who do not appreciate the negative publicity that comes from it. Negative attention that was completely unnecessary and avoidable. There is no upside to this game, at all. It's not just the media.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||That's why 2011 was so much fun||
And also why I become irrationally angry every time someone calls that season nothing but "luck".
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Yeah I get aggrivated at that||
The flippant way 2011 is discussed as purely "lucky", and yet while psychoanalyzing last year luck isn't brought up at all.
And it could very well be that chemistry plays into the differences. How much? Well, it's impossible to really tell, because chemistry is an "x-factor" that can't really be analyzed by stats. The 2011 team had a lot of chemistry, and it's no coincidence that it was our most senior-laden team of recent memory.
And as far as luck goes...I kind of subscribe to the Mike Babcock school of thought. Oh sure, there is luck that you can't control, but if your work ethic remains unchanged in the face of bad luck, you will eventually make your own luck. And I think chemistry plays into that. The 2011 team won teh Sugar Bowl with a ton of luck involved, but part of it was the team just believing they would win, never giving up, etc etc. How else can you beat ND like we did that year? Last year was the first time I can ever recall seeing a Hoke team flat out giving up in a game. And it's hard to believe that chemistry didn't play a role in that.
PLus think about how variable the team was last year. One week they're ripping up ND and OSu, the next they can't buy a yard to save their lives at times against Nebraska and Akron and Uconn. There are a multitude of reasons for those, but it's also possible that bad chemsitry was the feedback mechanism for why the season lows were SO BAD.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Yup||
That is exactly how football works. Case closed, everyone!
|12 weeks 1 day ago||You know nothing, DrueDown||
You know nothing, DrueDown
|13 weeks 1 day ago||Meh||
All this does is confirm what we all knew was probably happening all along. And honestly? In a weird way, this helps Michigan,because we don't want the sorts of kids who are so easily swayed by that BS to come here anyway.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||Yup||
It takes a lot to make my jaw drop (especially knowing what GoT does to its characters routinely)...but hot damn, that sure did it. Awesome scene.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||Dude deserves an Emmy||
He is arguably the best actor on the whole show, and that's saying a lot because there is a lot of great acting on this show.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||I really dislike this continued argument||
Did the offense cause the defense to give up a bajillion points against Indiana and Ohio State? I mean there were times that what you're saying is true...but let's not act like the defense was perfect either if only for the offense. I recall a specific 80 yard drive given up in about 30 seconds against PSU. And while we like to blame the offense mostly for that loss (which I agree with)...the D played its part too.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Me too||
I don't get the constant fretting over the worst case scenario. Yeah it could happen, but Michigan could also win the Big Ten this year. Don't see much anyone obsessing over the latter though.
|17 weeks 1 day ago||I watched it last night using HBOGO||
About 30 minutes after the TV premier. Soooo...yeah.
|17 weeks 1 day ago||Nah||
Daniel Tosh is really Lane Kiffin.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Kinda makes me sick to read||
Comments defending Sterling.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Ok||
How about the millions of dollars he's made in settlements over accusations of racial discrimination? That is far more serious than this...disappointing that it would take a tape like this to out him publicly in the media. But it's hard to have any sympathy whatsoever for a bigot. His rights were not violated in the least. Most states are one-party tape consent states.